NYC Subway Hero Says Police Initially Left Him to Fend for Himself Against Killer

NYC Subway Hero Says Police Initially Left Him to Fend for Himself Against Killer

This is a discussion on NYC Subway Hero Says Police Initially Left Him to Fend for Himself Against Killer within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The lawsuit against the police will go no where. There are at least 5 SCOTUS decisions (maybe 7?) that say the police have no duty ...

The lawsuit against the police will go no where. There are at least 5 SCOTUS decisions (maybe 7?) that say the police have no duty to protect anybody. Period. Suing the police, regardless of their failure to perform under any conditions, is a non starter. See: So You Think The Police Are Bound To Protect YOU , third paragraph. His lawyer should know better than to do this.

The cases where SCOTUS made this ruling are way worse than this one. This one will go noplace.

The way the justice system is set up is actually quite simple: The general public act as bait. If a criminal takes the bait the police have a duty to investigate and attempt to apprehend the predator as a matter of general public safety, but they don't have a duty to protect any specific individual from harm. This is exactly why the second amendment is in place to protect our right to defend ourselves from harm. With out the right to defend ourselves there is no provision for personal protection anyplace under the law.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

The lawsuit against the police will go no where. There are at least 5 SCOTUS decisions (maybe 7?) that say the police have no duty to protect anybody. Period. Suing the police, regardless of their failure to perform under any conditions, is a non starter. See: So You Think The Police Are Bound To Protect YOU , third paragraph. His lawyer should know better than to do this.

The cases where SCOTUS made this ruling are way worse than this one. This one will go noplace.

The way the justice system is set up is actually quite simple: The general public act as bait. If a criminal takes the bait the police have a duty to investigate and attempt to apprehend the predator as a matter of general public safety, but they don't have a duty to protect any specific individual from harm. This is exactly why the second amendment is in place to protect our right to defend ourselves from harm. With out the right to defend ourselves there is no provision for personal protection anyplace under the law.

Fitch

If they sue on the grounds that the city denied him his right to keep and bear arms and therefore protect himself from this attack, he may get somewhere ;)

Chunk Klein, along with a few others successfully challenged the status quo on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ohio several years ago. This challenge led to the passage of a concealed carry law in Ohio. Until that time there were no provisions for concealed carry in the Buckeye State and those that openly carried a sidearm were often charged with something akin to "disturbing the peace" or "inciting a panic". There was nearly no way a citizen in Ohio could legally exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms without running afoul of the law.

Ultimately the state Supreme Court ruled that those in power could not have it both ways;

No statutory allowance for concealed carry and punishment for open carry.

I would rather die with good men than hide with cowardsIf you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."